July 6, 2013

I suspect he wouldn't want to hear my truly dismissive response, but if you search the comments at my somewhat dismissive response... and over here... you can extrapolate what it would be. I'll cherry-pick some clues as to what I would say if I chose to go hard-core on this subject.
Quoting a commenter who said — about my proposal that health insurance pay for vasectomies and men freeze their sperm in order to provide males with reproductive autonomy — "Point of order, the woman has a right to seek an abortion. There's nothing about anyone having to provide it to her or having Other People pay for it," I said:

That's true, and that is something that makes the proposal in my post not neatly about equality.

But there really can never be equality about pregnancy and childbirth. It is the woman's special burden, and the policies have to be arranged to make sense around that basic inequity. I'm not trying to punish men by imposing a corresponding inequity, I'm just not impressed by the whinings of males who were profligate with their sperm. They are not the backbone of society.

The backbone of society is the married, committed couple who channel their sexuality into making and growing the next generation. Those who do other things are free to make choices, but we as a society have no reason to facilitate their choices, especially their destructive choices.

I know people like their free sex, but the expectation that the rest of us will save them from consequences is pathetic. I heartlessly laugh in their face.

Quoting a commenter who said, "Your logic is correct for our pathetic society, but that doesn't rob from how pathetic it is," I said:

Yeah, but that's my point. My real prescription isn't [the vasectomy/frozen sperm proposal]. This is a fall-back now that we've become pathetic.

Really, men need to keep track of their genetic material. One way or another.

Don't be a splooge stooge.

Quoting a commenter who said "Women are just as responsible themselves..." I said:

I never said they weren't.

Both are fully responsible.

And, on the earlier post, quoting a commenter who said "Let's try applying your logic the other way. Women are free to freeze their eggs and then have their tubes tied. That way they have perfect choice not to get pregnant. So that does away with the case for abortion, right?" I said:

The fact is, once a woman is pregnant, she has a right to use abortion to get out of the physical process that has begun, but it is too late for the man to exercise a right, because his rights relate to his body, not hers.

The man must take responsibility for himself, not seek to control the woman.

I know you men would like to have your fun and freedom and not be troubled by risks, but your body is yours and her body is hers.

Reacting to all the many, many comments from men who have taken Instapundit's invitation to victimology seriously, I said (punctuation corrected):

There are some really sad beta posturings in this thread.

Where is the self-respect?

Where is the awe over procreation?

Lame little men, whining about their meager money.

No one cares about you, because no one should!

Where is your aspiration? Where is your altruism?

Why do you leave the house?

You have your porn and your masturbation.

The alternative is true manhood, but is that something you are capable of? Apparently not!

I laugh in your scrunched up crying little face.

Another commenter said "You are also forgetting that even if a condom is used and the woman fishes the condom out of the trash and uses a turkey baster to impregnate herself, the man is still held responsible. If a woman takes a used condom from a man having sex *with a different woman* and impregnates herself, the man is held responsible. If a man and woman only engage in oral sex and the woman saves the sperm for later use with a turkey baster, the man is held responsible. None of that means that the man has any actual *rights* in regards to the child." Which made me say:

I am absolutely not forgetting about that.

Men need to value and guard their genetic material.

The lameness of men who throw this stuff around is mindboggling. Don't be [a] splooge stooge.

Now, I think women shouldn't want to invest their reproductive effort in such idiots, but that's the other side of the story.

And (emphasis added):

The men who are saying: I want something because women have something.

You guys...

If you don't have the wherewithal to realize what you are... you are no longer men, and women should be rejecting you. I can't account for all these women, but at least, if they become pregnant, they take on an immense burden. They feel that.

You guys... I wonder if you feel anything at all.

You are unworthy. The reason something ought to save you from becoming fathers is that you are unworthy, but unfortunately, it seems that some women do still choose to have sex with you and even to bear your children.

And that -- THAT! -- is what you complain is your misfortune.

Amazing blindness. Your misfortune is so much worse than that.

And somebody said: "Then there are cases like the one (likely more than one...), where a woman who performed (only) oral sex with a man, using a condom, retrieved the condom and inseminated herself, and successfully sued for child support. IMO if a man does something that physiologically cannot produce conception without the woman's deliberate and willfully deceptive action, he is not responsible in any way for the conception." And I said:

I don't know why a woman would invest her reproductive effort in carrying forward the genes of such a man, but I have no sympathy with him at all.

I fear for the future of humankind, with such stupidity in our inheritance.

The man is an idiot, and the woman is an idiot. Maybe the child can rise above it.

But sympathy for this man who has no love and no self-respect? Why don't you save your compassion for someone who deserves it?

This men's rights stuff was old-hat in the 1980s. Recycling it now is the lamest thing I've seen in a long, long time.

If you really cared about men, you'd try to do something to elevate them, as I am trying right now. Instead you are inviting them into a downward spiral. This is worse than The Life of Julia.

The whining and crying about what victims men are these days continued way into the night. In the morning I saw a comment that began with the burnt-out old internet expression "sigh": "Sigh. And yet a wife can make the choice to abort her kid without even telling her husband. Shoudnt they be consulting their husband?" I had to take another shot:

Yes, and that's exactly the reason Planned Parenthood v. Casey gave for striking down a statutory requirement that a woman consult her husband.

Argh, the comments here and at Dr. Helen or even from Instapundit himself seem to reflect a growing "womenz are teh evilz" attitude. Damn. Professor Althouse is right. Don't want to get a woman pregnant? Don't have sex with her. Don't have sex with anyone you don't trust fully. Goes for both sexes, but the man is always responsible for where he puts his junk.

So, boys, here's a good rule: If you don't trust the woman, and don't want to have a child with her, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH HER AT ALL. Not oral. Not with a condom. Not if you pull out. Not even with someone else's dick.

I didn't look at Althouse until late in the day during the past few days and didn't participate in the epic threads on this topic, though I skimmed through them when they started hitting the 300-400 mark. And I don't think I'll participate much in this one since today will be a busy vacay day, but I'll make some quick observations and comments.

There is much wisdom in this line:I fear for the future of humankind, with such stupidity in our inheritance.

It appears that Althouse has been working over the past couple of weeks to separate the wheat from the chaff of the commentariat.

If you have sex and use a condom, flush it down the toilet afterwards if you want to be really safe.

During their heyday, the Pretenders were one of the best rock bands of all time.

But is that true? Do you have experience of that, or even evidence? My personal experience, in Ohio, is that the courts also go with the men. Both parties are held to their respective responsibilities; assets, liabilities, property, and living standard are all equally divided. I refer you to the Ohio Revised Code.

If you think that a man should have to pay to support a child after a woman takes his semen from a condom and injects herself with it, then you're an extremist and a misandrist.

"Lame little men, whining about their meager money."

You do realize that people trade the hours of their lives for money, right? When a leftist says something like this, dismissing our property rights over our own money as petty greed, they forget that time is money, and our time on this earth finite, and you might as well say that human lives are disposable.

Which I guess is an attitude that's at least consistent with your belief in a right to murder unborn children.

Is there a word for someone who hates men, but specifically heterosexual men? I think we need such a word.

If a penis comes in contact with a vagina a pregnancy can result. When a man releases genetic material a pregnancy can result. No matter what type of contraception is used. Even surgical contraceptive measures have failure rates. Unless the woman has had a hysterectomy or the man has been castrated, a pregnancy can happen.

Both men and women bear equal responsibility BEFORE this contact occurs. EVEN if they choose or say they have chosen to use contraception. Once this contact occurs, you have biologically consented to a pregnancy.

The fact that this conversation continues with both men and women whining about the other shows first how ignorant of our own bodies and the limits of medical devices, substances, and procedures we have become and second, how entitled we feel that someone else should save us from our decisions when they begin to inconvenience us.

If we really are about avoiding #LifeofJulia and wish to stop incentivizing unwed motherhood, I see only two practical options ...

#1 If the couple are unmarried, mom gets no child support and dad has no rights AND mom doesn't qualify for any state support. She can use her family, friends, whatever or the kid goes up for adoption.

#2 Or marriage status of couple should be irrelevant, so couple has equal rights to the child and the law is weighted toward the life of the child. e.g. both have to agree to abortion or child gets to live and both parents give equal support, monetary and physical custody/care.

Harsh? Yeah, but the taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for the stupid sex acts of people who refuse to plan for a child.

And if you have a vasectomy, freedom's just another word for nothing left to splooge.

Vasectomies should only be performed where the doc has admitting privileges to a hospital that is located within 1 mile of the clinic. The doc should also have to describe each and every one of the millions of sperm swimmers that will be murdered to the patient. We'll call it "Phelps Law".

I love the irony of a female posting on a blog where she openly advocates for women to be given special privileges, and she genuinely doesn't see how intellectually bankrupt she is, especially when she gets all emotional and pissy, and starts lashing out at men.

You're an obvious self centered hypocrite who has no idea what men go through.

Speaking of sticking it everywhere, 007 Bond's first real film Dr No is the go-to film for lame not-quite-cool-yet pickups and with the budget for magnificance on the very low side.

Remember, the only reason the Bond books, and, later, movies, were even noticed this side of the Pond was because Jack Kennedy, when asked why the lights in the White House were on so late, replied, "I'm, uh, up reading, ah, James Bond".

He couldn't admit he was screwing Marilyn Monroe.

They raised the budget a lot for later films, and added irony to repair the coolness problem.

Note "Goldfinger", the first one released post-JFK, looks like an A-list movie.

They never did manage to motivate the love interests, but maybe women fall for anything.

That's the point. 00 whats-his-face is just another bad boy and women think with their little head as much as men do with theirs.

Pathetic words from a woman fully involved in the destruction of the backbone of society. You sound almost homophobic.

I wonder how you treat your male students. Probably the typical anti-male bias found throughout academia.

"Women are just as responsible themselves..." I said:I never said they weren't.

No, you just ignore the woman's role, rationalize their fraud and call men whiners and losers. That's the best you can do to defend your indefensible position, use ad hominems and perjoratives.

The rest of us know who one of the real losers is, the potential rapist, cheater, abandoner who's taking a stand against rape, cheating and abandonment. Ann's also providing good evidence for the nurture argument for the origins of homosexuality.

If you think it is man-hating to tell men not to wallow in victimhood, you're pretty far gone. If you think the lovers of men are the ones who help you think of yourselves in those terms and to see women as responsible for your woes, that's pretty bad.

Actually, Althouse, the condom-fished-out-of-the-trash thing is the moral equivalent to what started this discussion -- women who lie about their fertility to purposefully get pregnant. Yes, that happens to wealthy men.

The turkey baster detail just draws a bright line around your extremist position.

Did you ever notice, Althouse, that when you argue against a group of men on a gender-related issue, you use mockery of their masculinity as a tactic? I've never noticed you do this against another group.

Take the Zimmerman trial. It seems clear that you think Zimmerman should be acquitted, so you disagree with, I'd guess, 95% of all African Americans. Why don't you try mockery against them, and question just how black they really are? Why do you suppose it is that you reserve a special level of spite for hetero males?

I've seen Althouse engage thoughtfully, and I've seen her engage to enrage. There has been a choice here to engage this topic in a very.....antagonistic way. The last post about Dr Helen, though I can't remember what it was, was quite ungracious.

Why are these choices being made. Certsinly not for anyone's enlightenment.

MayBee, I'm starting to suspect that Althouse isn't really arguing these points because she believes them, but to lead us down some path to draw some parallel and make some other argument on an entirely different topic.

Actually, I do recommend celibacy over low-quality sexual relationships, even sex encounters that seem reasonably fun on any given occasion.

7/6/13, 10:57 AM

That's fine, but our society has decided not to encourage celibacy among women or men.So we should make the laws right for society as it is. People fighting for more equality under unjust, unequal laws aren't generally called pathetic by liberal-minded people. In this case, it is men.

Of course, when it comes to the pro-choice argument, men become rapists, incestuous, and brutes who make their wives have their babies. This discussion just can't be had, it seems, without making men very bad.

So imagine this: man gets a lawyer to write up a contract that his sex partner signs, promising that, should she get pregnant, she will not sue for child support, and, if the state requires the payment of child support, she will be liable to reimburse him these amounts. Enforceable, or no?

Sure, which is another reason why men are increasingly sitting on the sidelines when it comes to marriage.Nobody really wants to marry a cum-dumpster.

One of the other problems is that these young women, with their degree and useless HR or marketing jobs, are all convinced they are special snowflakes who should be with McDreamy. Go to a local establishment and observe the 22-27 y/o females and see if you don't want to leave the place screaming in abject horror at the thought of them being mothers.

"Ann Althouse said... These condom-fished-out-of-the-trash stories are like the old woman-got-pregnant-from-the-toilet-seat stories."

I know players who either flush their used condoms or take them home with them. You say it's an old-wives tale, which you can, because you are an old wife. However, unless you have some proof it can't happen, I'm willing to believe it can. And does. After all, if sperm can survive freezing, what else can it survive?

Althouse is making a particularly moral argument, and advises men to be quite moral themselves, but in practice, given human nature, it's clear that not everyone behaves in such a fashion.

Codes of behavior and conduct, as well as institutions that used to be all male (like law schools and the military) actually help MAKE men who they are, in addition to other factors. There are accompanying traditions and laws and rituals that form free-thinking, responsible, moral and non-splooge-stooge males.

These are the same institutions and traditions that many people in our society have been demanding should change at accelerated paces to accommodate all manner of ideological freedom and individual freedom, often without responsibility or a horde of bad laws to ensure an individual's responsibility.

Men are made, and no man is an island.

This is precisely the point I think Dr. Helen makes (unlike others who fall back upon religious moral thinking). She's a psychologist, and perhaps she's simply pointing out how the incentives have changed for men at work, in the courts, on T.V., in play and pretty much every other aspect of life, including these institutions.

Yeah, some men have lost out and they're bitching, but responsible men AND women ask at what cost these changes have come, which to her credit, I think Althouse often does.

1. Recognize the power and risk that you have in your sperm and treat it accordingly. Don't trust people who don't love you and are not bonded to you for life.

As I recall, this latest theatre of the absurd began with a married woman who wanted to come clean on the fact that she "tricked" some other poor unsuspecting schmuck into be the father of her child on purpose. So now she wants to admit to everyone including her daughter that she is a devious coniving bitch who used a guy to get pregnant without his knowledge....since he was TOLD that SHE was using birth control. She lied, she tricked him and now she wants to damage other people just so she can feel better about herself.

The next letter is the reverse situation and is just as disgusting in that the woman had an abortion without letting her "kind, sensitive, wonderful man" know about it, when he would likely have stepped up and done the responsible thing.

In both cases in Althouse's world the woman has all the rights, the man has none. It is never ever the woman's fault. The woman has no responsibilities and when men object, they are beta whiners who should keep their 'splooge' to themselves .....because shut up stupid men!!

Perhaps we should go back to the old tried and true method of no sex before marriage. Women keep your knees together and men keep your penis and splooge to yourself. Is this what the Althouses of the world desire? Also to be bonded to you for life would indicate that there is no divorce. Or can we be bonded for life to several people serially or at the same time. Polygamy FTW!!!! The man can splooge (such a lovely word for a meaningful bonded relationship act) at several women at a time. Woohoooo!!!

I wonder what the University thinks of this unbecoming, harpy like, unhinged, bitchy blogging from one of their employees. It certainly cannot reflect well on the University.

Ann says don't have sex, just jerk off if you can't find a good woman (harder to find than a good man these days), and then says man up under an unfair legal system.

I said you were right about something but I didn't like your characterization of what I said.

Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em. It seemed to me you were contradicting yourself.

How is that me being nasty? Seems more like you are being nasty.

No, I do try to be a gentleman.

I thought, "So edutcher did kind of get something right, though I don't care whether or not you masturbate", was a bit over the line.

I get a lot right. Because we disagree doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong.

If you think it is man-hating to tell men not to wallow in victimhood, you're pretty far gone. If you think the lovers of men are the ones who help you think of yourselves in those terms and to see women as responsible for your woes, that's pretty bad.

I did say, "Men should reassert themselves, but I don't think a lot of womyn are going to like the result.", so I'm hardly advocating "wallowing in victimhood" (when have I ever advocated it here?).

All I'm saying is, if men do reassert themselves - politically as well as socially - kiss a fond farewell to a lot of the "gains" of feminism.

Impregnated single mom: "I spread my legs and now I want a real baby, like the dolls I've played with but with more poop. But I don't want to pay for it. Daddy Judge, make mean old Mr. Sploogey pay me money for the next 18 years! Daddyyyyy!"

(Not that I'm arguing against child support in all cases. But you could, with this powerful new line of reasoning from Althouse.)

How about this:If a man plants his seed in a garden which isn't his by marriage, he has no say in the upbringing of the child. If a woman allows seed to be planted from a man to whom she is not married, she has no right to child support.

Both parties are responsible. Get married and raise your kids or have bastards and hope for the best. Men who don't participate in raising their children deprive themselves of a chance to become a better person. Fathers are so important to raising children that to deliberately place your future child in jeopardy by being a single mother seems irresponsible.

If one wants to observe where Left-feminist supremacists have gotten us, it's right here.

Women were the sexual gate keepers because they knew that just about every act of sexual intercourse could result in pregnancy...and if she was not married, she was dependent only upon the kindness of her family if the man refused to marry her.

The Pill happened about the same time that Leftists seized feminism and got all "Women can be just as free about sex as men now!"

Except, they weren't and aren't.

The female supremacists want all the sexual decisions for themselves because, regardless of how they blather about there being no differences in the sexual natures of men and women, they absolutely know those differences are fundamental, and they want to exploit them.

They want their sex on their terms, child custody and child support too.

"If you're thinking of bringing up the woman's right to choose to avoid a pregnancy, let me repeat that this is a decision that properly belongs to the woman. Pregnancy occurs inside the woman's body, where the man lost control of his sperm. He should have been more risk averse."Pregnancy occurs inside the womb. Child support occurs outside the womb. Why should the womans choice impact the man when the baby is outside the womb?

when do we get to the part where the poor ghetto kids need free contraception and easy access to abortion because they simply can't help themselves? Haven't we heard that line in relation to the need to promote contraception rather than abstainence in sex ed classes, because teenagers are physiologically incapable of restraining themselves from having sex?

I'm just not impressed by the whinings of males who were profligate with their sperm. They are not the backbone of society.

The backbone of society is the married, committed couple who channel their sexuality into making and growing the next generation.

This is true, but note the hostile tone towards men. You just have to substitute women into her rant to see how inappropriate the anger and disdain is. It takes two sexes to make a baby.

Those who do other things are free to make choices, but we as a society have no reason to facilitate their choices, especially their destructive choices.

Here is where Althouse's anti-male bias becomes really obvious. She has failed to explain--cannot explain--why society is forced to facilitate the destructive choices of women.

It's really telling, I think, that Althouse uses the term "choices" and then "destructive choices," with extremely sharp criticism. Obviously she wants to criticize abortion. And yet she cannot make this argument, because it would be attacking her own gender!

Thus feminism makes her incoherent.

I know people like their free sex, but the expectation that the rest of us will save them from consequences is pathetic. I heartlessly laugh in their face.

I can't imagine Althouse writing these words about a pregnant woman. If we were talking about a pregnant woman, she would recite some frickin' poetry from Casey about the mysteries of the universe. And how infanticide is a right thing to do.

It's really telling, I think, that Althouse uses the term "choices" and then "destructive choices," with extremely sharp criticism. Obviously she wants to criticize abortion. And yet she cannot make this argument, because it would be attacking her own gender!

Annie could never write a book, she's too afraid of rejection. Writing a book takes many qualities, one of the most important being balls. Putting yourself out there. This nice little fiefdom suits Annie just fine, thank you. Stay in Madison, take the same road trips, make the same men in shorts quips. It's becoming Cuckoo's Nest like, w/ Nurse Ratchet needing and RP McMurphy to shake up things.

" Ann Althouse said...If you think it is man-hating to tell men not to wallow in victimhood, you're pretty far gone."

This is becoming pretty hard to dodge on the right. It's a full embrace of victimization among the poor souls who suddenly find themselves without any group of lower social standing to demonize. Therefore the incessant whining.

Naked Bob Dylan Robot notes that This Subject is Contemplated in the Song "Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat"

Well, you look so pretty in it Honey, can I jump on it sometime?

The Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat Represents the Stylish Repression of the Sexual Urges of the Hat-Wearing Woman -- the Hat is a "Pillbox", thus referencing both Birth Control and Containment --, and How those Urges Create a Corresponding Attraction in the Male, as the Leopard-Skin Pattern Stimulates Animal Urges. This Becomes More Obvious in the Following Lines, where the Titular Hat is Compared to A Mattress:

Yes, I just wanna see If it's really that expensive kind You know it balances on your head Just like a mattress balances On a bottle of wineYour brand new leopard-skin pill-box hat

That the Mattress is Balanced On a Bottle of Wine Implies that the Man is Contemplating the Use of Alcohol to Achieve the Goal of "jump(ing) on it sometime."

However, this Desire Remains Unrequited, as Evidenced in the Following lines:

Well, if you wanna see the sun rise Honey, I know where We'll go out and see it sometime We'll both just sit there and stare Me with my belt Wrapped around my head And you just sittin' there In your brand new leopard-skin pill-box hat

Notice that they Will "Sit and Stare": there is No Jumping Upon the "Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat". Furthermore, The Man Now Has a Belt Wrapped Around His Head, Indicating Restraint of His Hat-Jumping Thoughts, and -- Possibly -- Implying a Restraint Around His Phallic Head.Meanwhile, the Woman is "just sittin' there" and there is no further mention of a Mattress.

This issue has become inflamed primarily because women have changed. They used to admire, respect, and emulate women of character, honesty and reliability, as we all did. What changed was that women started to admire the self-interested, the ambitious, the get-ahead-at-all-costs, selfish women. They began to admire and emulate women who acted like successful but not necessarily admirable men.

Now we have lots of women like that, and it's very difficult to tell them apart from the good ones. Feminism demands you at least look the part and pretend to agree with the principle that women should be just like men, while somehow still being better. Obviously, that's just not possible. If you want to get in the mud with the pigs, you will get dirty. The men here are mostly complaining that too many women are just nasty men who still believe they are and demand to be seen as respectable women.

If we could just get some of you to wear a special hat or something, because just telling us to avoid the bad ones is not working. The decent men who try their best are getting burned as well. The "control your DNA" prescription just isn't effective against the disease, which is rampant poor character. We really need your help on this ladies, so what else you got?

Outside of Ann's ridiculous idea of vasectomy and freezing sperm, the other idea, get the girl pregnant, you have to pay, isn't so bad. Just modern day society has screwed it up.

Let's see. In the old days, you got a girl pregnant, you married her. And I suspect she felt some kind of obligation to clean the house, and provide sexual favors from time to time.

Today, things have changed a bit:

Girl doesn't need to marry youDespite the idea Ann has said you could get the kid, let's be realistic.She isn't going to pay you anything, she isn't going to clean your house, and she isn't going to give you any sexual favors.

In addition, even if you are an innocent bystander, and didn't get a girl pregnant, you have to pay for it with all the welfare.

So men are required to be as responsible as ever before, get none of the perks, but not women.

My theory is a cornerstone of women acquiescing to sex is that they have it with the kind of male (beta males, for sure) who are going to be there to pay for their child. With the state, aka taxpayer, picking up the tab, that necessary function of women is no longer necessary.

Anyway, what I take away most from Ann's post is have sex with post-menopausal women. Or married ones.

I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade or so, there is a nation-wide DNA database of all residents. The right will like it because illegal immigrants will be caught by it. The left will like it because it will make running Obamacare (or whatever Obamacare morphs into) easier.

That means it will be possible to determine all children's paternity. Then make a bright-line rule, "If you are the biological father of a child, you are responsible for it up to the age of 18, no matter how it came into being." Make sure everyone knows it. That will make men guard their sperm.

(And, yes, there will have to be exceptions for sperm donors, adoptions, and other things I can't think of off hand.)

I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade or so, there is a nation-wide DNA database of all residents. The right will like it because illegal immigrants will be caught by it. The left will like it because it will make running Obamacare (or whatever Obamacare morphs into) easier.

That means it will be possible to determine all children's paternity. Then make a bright-line rule, "If you are the biological father of a child, you are responsible for it up to the age of 18, no matter how it came into being." Make sure everyone knows it. That will make men guard their sperm.

(And, yes, there will have to be exceptions for sperm donors, adoptions, and other things I can't think of off hand.)

The charge of "whining" is just lazy. There are real and significant problems being identified, many encoded in law, and if you say someone demanding they be fixed is "whining", then you are saying you think those problems are either nonexistent or irrelevant, so make that case. Telling people to stop whining is not making the case, it's avoiding the argument. Why would you only offer that after you bothered to come here and discuss it?

Those are the rules of the game you face today. What will you do about it?

Pm317- I'm not ganging up on her, but I don't agree with her.

This is America! Of course people or groups who are being treated unfairly should argue against that treatment. Trying to change it, or to get others to see it from their perspective, is honorable, not awful.

If you think it is man-hating to tell men not to wallow in victimhood, you're pretty far gone.

I know so many people who think like Ann does here. "I was a victim, so I can do no wrong." It's a really disgusting attitude.

The balance between men and women has changed because social mores have changed. You are seeing people stating clearly the changes aren't good.

69% of black children are in single parent families.33% of Hispanic children are in single parent families.28% of White children are in single parent families.

72.3% of blacks born out of wedlock.53.3 percent of Hispanics born out of wedlock.29.1% of whites born out of wedlock.

Meanwhile, the focus of the day is "Gay's can't get married." What about all those children living inferior lives, to create the Leftist Utopia? It's time to change something. It didn't used to be this way. And I don't think it is because women are working, incidentally, and women who want to work ought to be able to.

It's because of the leftist attack on the family.

In short, I see these complaints of people putting holes in condoms, etc., as a small symptom of a much bigger problem. One created by leftists.

Roger Sweeny said...I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade or so, there is a nation-wide DNA database of all residents. The right will like it because illegal immigrants will be caught by it. The left will like it because it will make running Obamacare (or whatever Obamacare morphs into) easier.

I've had my DNA tested, and there is no way that you can tell if I (or my present count of almost 1600 cousins) are illegal.

I've said several times now when tangling with the guys here on women's issues that it was becoming increasingly evident that they were flinging themselves into victim mode, consistently whining about the "inequities" men face, and the choice that women have been given by law, etc.etc. etc. Made me wonder what the heck these men are suffering, upon discussion it seemed to be a jealousy over a woman's autonomy and her reproductive choices.

All this talk of men going on strike, please. As I said yesterday there are more men who can step up and be men, who don't feel such hostility to women. They aren't hard to find at all and no they are not less men in any way than you complainers.

It was getting to be ridiculous. Now you've been ridiculed by the blog owner in a way only she can do so well. I salute her.

"That means it will be possible to determine all children's paternity. Then make a bright-line rule, "If you are the biological father of a child, you are responsible for it up to the age of 18, no matter how it came into being." Make sure everyone knows it. That will make men guard their sperm."

As a corollary, a parent is responsible for any grandchild conceived by their child, male or female, before the age of 18.

It is what it is. I'm all for social justice. To argue that the richest and most powerful segment of people in the richest and most powerful country in the world needs special protection because the newly empowered "others" are doing better than they used to ... doesn't quite cut it.

Have at it. I guess I am not following the whole instapundit, Helen, and all the rest of it. I think Ann in a nutshell blasts anybody who wants to play victim and cry foul (except of course if they are blacks and gays). She has a soft corner for both.

American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. The trend is so pronounced that a number of books have been written about this “man-child” phenomenon, concluding that men have taken a vacation from responsibility simply because they can. But why should men participate in a system that seems to be increasingly stacked against them?

As Men on Strike demonstrates, men aren’t dropping out because they are stuck in arrested development. They are instead acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands and providers. In addition, men are going on strike, either consciously or unconsciously, because they do not want to be injured by the myriad of laws, attitudes and hostility against them for the crime of happening to be male in the twenty-first century. Men are starting to fight back against the backlash. Men on Strike explains their battle cry.

Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Mattersby Helen Smith (Author)

Take the Zimmerman trial. It seems clear that you think Zimmerman should be acquitted, so you disagree with, I'd guess, 95% of all African Americans. Why don't you try mockery against them, and question just how black they really are? Why do you suppose it is that you reserve a special level of spite for hetero males?

C'mon, Pasta, I'm the only black male she really knows and I'm only a black male when she decides I am - otherwise I'm to be shit upon like all the rest.

Ann is a feminist, which is the same as being a racist, but she can't accept that about herself because part of that is declaring yourself morally superior - even if you have to deploy totally immoral means to believe it. Which means she never will.

when '60's free love/tenured law professor meets fruits of their labor

Not the preachy type, or even "religious", however, God's laws/Nature's laws are foreign to this discussion.

Foreign things like 'man courts woman, with her permission, holy matrimony, act of love in which the two bodies become one, blessing of a child, both loving parents assume their natural roles as protector and nurturer.

Foreign

I suspect many will use a host of other adjectives, non of them positive, to describe the scenario above.

Sex for purposes other than procreation seems to me worse than pointless. I want to have sex to create children. If I were having sex for some masturbatory reason--to explore my own feelings--, then even if there were birth control being used, I couldn't help being distracted from fantasizing by the cold slap of a feeling that I am having sex to masturbate, which is contrary to my sense of what is just. Good fantasy is as real as possible, but reality should be judged not only by how much is there that would be, but by how much isn't there that wouldn't be. And fantasizing by having sex has something egregiously glaringly different from real sex, namely that in real sex one isn't having actual sex for fantasy. Maybe if a woman were old and beyond child-bearing years, I might feel sex okay by way of reminiscing about the past, or more particularly about the past I had with her, but I have never been in that situation, so really I don't know and haven't thought much about it.

I think the actual reason for some males to like fake sex is that it gives an opportunity for sodomy, which can addict the female into wanting something she else would not have wanted (like procreation). Fake sex is sort of in between masturbation and meaningful sex, which both are perfectly okay, and that basically tends to be the extent of their justification. I should point out that "sex" (for fantasy purposes) on a navel, though still probably a little too real for my taste, is such a better alternative to sodomy that I'd suggest it's the reason that girls who show off their navels mostly seem the cleaner and more respectable for it.

All this said, if a woman wants to reproduce with a man enough as to be solely responsible for their issue, she ought to be allowed to do so. I have much more esteem for a woman (or girl) having free sex than I would for a woman who decides to have children with someone who will marry her whom she loves much less. In fact, I would go further and say that mostly what makes a female loveable is the sense that she would more put love ahead of money and caring in her reproductive decisions. What makes a female worth marrying is largely if not mostly her nature's willingness to have sex outside marriage if love demands it. Females tend to love through sex, and their love is greatly constrained when society forces that love to be less loving. Love is what causes morals to evolve. If female choice alone determined reproductive success, that admittedly would be bad because it would tend excessively to reward males who addict females into loving feelings, and there would be no motivation to do work. But if females never had sex freely, a man's success will be determined mostly just by how much money he can get and not hardly at all by how loveable he is. The only opportunities for a female to be loving would depend on male income differences (marrying someone poor from love when a richer less loved suitor be available), and so could not balance. Society would become extremely selfish, to the point men would be paid more for how much they can cheat people than for how useful they have been to society, ultimately leading to social disintegration or destruction.

What is wrong with what she is saying here? I don't understand why some of you are ganging up on her.

Guys only having sex with women who they want to be with for the rest of their life? The answer is that it violates the male biological imperative to have as much sex with as many acceptable women as possible.

As Ann has pointed out here, a woman being pregnant is a very serious thing. She has to bear the child, and care for it for many years, biologically say to thirteen or fourteen. That is why women are the gatekeepers.

What Ann is saying is she wants men to use the intelligent part of the brain to overcome the deep biological urges they have. Meanwhile, women still have developed the "No Sex" part of the brain due to the costs.

It's simply backwards. She is trying to make men into women. But they are intrinsically different here from tens of millions of years of evolution.

The fact of the last fifty years ought to instruct us that her views in this area are broken, and do not work. Meanwhile, the way things used to work was a lot better. Far fewer single family homes. Far fewer children born out of wedlock.

But she is a feminist victim, and is unable to understand that simply because she was a victim does not mean she is always right. She does this by ignoring the obvious issues, and advises the men they are being "Beta," when the true alpha male will simply get as many women as possible.

"because the newly empowered "others" are doing better than they used to ... doesn't quite cut it."

But nobody is making that argument. They are saying, among other things, that the the rules are encouraging and supporting fraud, and that fraud has victims, including the society as a whole. You seem to not care about the fraud, and it's effects as long as you imagine the victims are wealthy white men. That's the least affected group. The victims are often poor, working, minority men. I know some of these guys. They are broke, making menial wages, and having even that tapped to support a woman who simply defrauded them, or kicked them out when they found they could get supported without them there.

I know people in this forum are mostly well off, but that's not who are most at risk with these policies. It's men who can't afford a good lawyer. I have known more than one man who was forced to pay money to women they didn't impregnate. They simply had the penis closest to the woman when she decided she wanted money.

victoria said...What a putz. Intstapundit, not you Ann. I liked what you said, it was intelligent, well thought out and a bit pragmatic.

Vicki from Pasadena

Maybe this is all a ratings stunt. Perhaps Althouse is reaching for #1 rating law blog and since Insta is never counted, she has to bury him. This would be a an odd and treacherous stunt for her to pull, as most of first heard of Althouse vis Instapundit. I know I did.

Those are the rules of the game you face today. What will you do about it?

Let's understand what the laws are doing. They are encouraging women to have sex because the state is there to pick up the tab. Now, it really isn't the "State," it is taxpayers.

What can I do about the behavior the state is encouraging in both men, and women, Ann?

The answer is nothing. The judge who tried to give welfare Mom was norplant was pilloried.

The only thing I can do is whine, and tell people like you the current law is having a very bad effect, in the hopes you stop pushing this new, unsustainable approach to male/female biological functions.

Thanks @Dante. I got all that she is saying. I think the gist of it is whoever, man or woman, does not want the child should be more responsible (for their own sake and their own choice). If the woman lied, shame on her but if you didn't want it, you make sure you don't get it.

The "man up!" whine reminds me of the old story of the airplane going down, and a young woman shouts out "I'm a virgin! Please, someone, make me a real woman before I die!" and a man stands up, tears off his shirt, hands it to her, and says, "Iron this."

Exactly Kchiker, what is so difficult in being responsible for your biological waste? Unless you desire to impregnate her, then consider it a gift freely given.

Of course there are cases of fraud, ON BOTH sides. How about the guy who says to to some woman he wants sex with and has no condom or doesn't like wearing one, "Oh honey, I'm fixed"? Of course she is also a partner in irresponsibility for believing him.

Actually, I do recommend celibacy over low-quality sexual relationships, even sex encounters that seem reasonably fun on any given occasion.

That's because you have no experience with the male biological imperative.

As I said before, look at the animal kingdom, Ann. Males are willing to risk death for mating rights. And you are going to tell kids who have no real way to understand the consequences they need to be careful with their sperm?

It simply is a non-starter. Now, women, on the other hand, and I keep bringing this up, have a natural understanding of what the sex act means. They are the gatekeepers.

The leftist rules have broken down that function, because they can always rely on welfare. The out of wedlock births track socio-economic status. Why do you think that is, Ann?

It's not the pill. It's the support for the kid they see. It's the removal of the stigma. It's destruction of no-fault divorce (thanks ronald reagan). Etc.

On the "Real Housewives of Orange County" this week two bitter rivals have become besties. Tamara and Gretchen pretend to be good buddies where under the surface you can see where they want to rip each others faces off. It is a professional jealousy where one is getting more attention and kudos than the other.

So they have to find little ways to dig at each other while still pretending that their hands are clean.

Exactly Kchiker, what is so difficult in being responsible for your biological waste? Unless you desire to impregnate her, then consider it a gift freely given."

She isn't obligated to accept the gift nor is she obligated to stay pregnant. If someone gave you a bottle of whiskey and the car keys you aren't obligated to get blind drunk and drive. If you chose that then it's entirely your choice and your obligations to suffer the consequences of your actions.

As for my opinion on this small controversy: This is good. This victim man stuff was hitting a tipping point of absurdity, so the push back is well timed.

I write that as someone who adores men and was raised mostly by her father. And I'm proud to say that my dearly departed father would never have advocated such a base vision for manhood, this vision that sees man as a pathetic beast who throws his sperm about with abandon and needs protecting from the women he beds.

Satan:"Damn, I spent all this time and energy on individual men, I should have realized this a long time ago: homo homini lupus, feminae lupior, femina infanta lupissimus!And it's much more effective & entertaining to watch!"

"I don't wanna have babies with the skanks I like to hose down with my sperm. Those disposable tramps I bed should be drawn and quartered if they try to pull a fast one on a fine, upstanding guy like me. Just where do these no-good, dishonest women I make love to get off?"

(Something I posted last night, deep in the depths of the 500+ comments.)

An existing baby or child by definition means the choice to have an abortion was not made. How on earth is it relevant to the issue of child support for a specific, existing child that another child was aborted?

Child support is supposed to be for the benefit of the child. While some men may experience having to pay child child support as punitive, that's not the design or point of it, which is to help provide for an existing child. If the child is yours, of course you should help provide for that child. It's not the child's fault, nor should it be the child's problem, that his or her father doesn't want to support him or her.

I have no problem with a man demanding, and a court ordering, a DNA test to establish paternity prior to a man being ordered to pay child support. And I also strongly support the notion that if a man is paying child support for a child who later turns out not to be his, he should be able to stop paying support and seek a refund of what he's already paid. Yes, I do realize that this could negatively affect an individual child (who is still blameless in the situation), but justice, unfortunately, outweighs that--and the woman should figure out who is the actual father. Sometimes that can't be done, but that doesn't justify forcing a proven non-father to function as one. (That said, I would deeply admire and respect any man who voluntarily continues to be a father to a kid who at some late date turns out not to be biologically his but who has bonded with him as such. )